Could communism ever work in practice?

What is human nature? Is it selfish? Or is it social? Maybe a bit of both? This seems to be one of the most fundamental questions when it comes to evaluating the philosophy and political system of Karl Marx. What exactly is human nature, and can it be changed?

Given that ‘post-capitalist’ ideas are growing more popular (particularly in Europe in the wake of the Great Recession), we’ve launched a series looking at the legacy of one of the most influential anti-capitalists in history: Karl Marx.

May 2018 will mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, and February 2018 will be the 170th anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto. To mark these dates, Debating Europe is launching a series of online discussions dedicated to examining the impact and legacy of Marx and his writings.

We had a comment from Eva, arguing that communism could never work in practice (at least, in a capitalism system). So, is communism just a nice idea that’s never been implemented properly? Or is the very notion flawed from the start?

To get a response, we put Eva’s comment to Vladimir Tismăneanu, Professor of Politics and Director of the Center for the Study of Post-communist Societies at the University of Maryland (College Park), and a prominent critic of Marxism. What would he say?

Eva makes a comment I hear quite frequently from my undergrads and graduate students, and I think we have to take it quite seriously. The communist project was fundamentally an economic, social, intellectual, moral, and civilisational project. The idea was not only to defeat capitalism economically, but to defeat capitalism and all the other previous social formulations, from slavery to the bourgeois domination; to create a new anthropological species. For Karl Marx, this was the mandate of the global proletarian revolution.

In his early writings, in his work ‘The Holy Family’, Karl Marx referred to the proletariat as the ‘messiah class of history’. This is the reason why, for instance, Yuri Slezkine, in his recent book ‘The House of Government’, insists on Bolshevism as a political religion. So, Karl Marx created a political religion meant to replace the Kingdom of Necessity through the Kingdom of Liberty. He basically thought that human nature can be fundamentally transformed, and here I find the major problem with the original Marxian project: the Utopian hubris at its core.

For another perspective, we put the same comment to Charles Post, Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College-CUNY. How would he respond?

If by ‘communism’ she means a non-capitalist economy, where there is collective social ownership of industry, commerce, etc., and there is a planned economy, I think, in fact, it can work. But there have to be two conditions, both of which were lacking in most of the societies that called themselves ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’.

The first is some level of material prosperity, so that people would have free time, etc. This didn’t exist in Russia in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, or in most of the countries that had experienced so-called transformations.

The other is that there has to be real democracy for working people. There has to be a multiplicity of political parties, free speech, free elections, etc. so that people can democratically discuss, debate, and correct planning decisions, etc. So, I think that the problem is that it was never implemented in societies where there was enough of a social surplus product that people had leisure time to engage in a really democratic political structure that has to surround any sort of socialist or post-capitalist world.

Next up, we had a comment from Tino, who thinks that Marx may have been wrong about the cure, but he at least diagnosed the disease correctly. Is that a fair assessment?

How would Professor Vladimir Tismăneanu respond? Obviously, he is a critic of Marx and his writings, but are there nevertheless some parts of Marx’s political philosophy that he finds himself agreeing with?

Definitely, there is a moral component in Karl Marx’s legacies that ought to be revisited, and ought to be, in my view, rescued and appreciated. Karl Marx opposed injustice, Karl Marx opposed exploitation, Karl Marx opposed the humiliation of human beings. This is an important thing, and even such a sworn critic of Marxism and of Karl Marx’s doctrine as the late British philosopher (born in Central Europe) Karl Popper, author of ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’, says that there is something very important that remains from the legacy of Karl Marx. That is: the moral prophetism.

On the other hand, the pretence to have created a ‘science’, the pretence to epistemic infallibility, the pretence to have the ultimate answer to all the ultimate questions, makes Karl Marx’s ideas, at this moment, problematic.

Finally, what would Professor Charles Post say to Tino’s comment? Does he think Marx was correct about the diagnosis but wrong about the cure?

No, I think that if you do believe that the problems the world faces today – from growing inequality, poverty, overwork, alienation, gender and racial discrimination, and environmental destruction – are actually rooted in the most basic dynamics of capitalism, which is what Marx argued even in the mid-19th century, then looking for some decisive break with capitalism and a different form of society is in fact necessary. That break has to come through a mass political movement and, as I said before, produce democratic political structures. Otherwise you get planned economies without democracy, which are highly wasteful, alienating, etc.

Could Communism ever work in practice? Is it a nice idea that’s never been implemented properly? Or is the idea flawed from the start? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their response!

There is no human nature. Only social constructs. And this is so easily proof-able. This human nature of yours seems to fail in different cultures and in different social settings seems to act in a different way.

Guillem Martí Bou Biology exists, but somehow there is nothing biological in you wearing cloths, in you getting married, in you having laws, in you studying and so on. Somehow this human nature turns out to be a mere subject-object interpretation of your surroundings.

Kindly tell that to some indigenous people living at the post-neolithic level that their society doesn’t reflect human nature and it’s only a social construct. Instead they should follow the teachings of Marx, because Marx knows better.

Even societies of indigenous people have a complex cultural web of understanding the world. Go read some Charles Taylor for example. Nothing “Natural” there either. If knowing about what Im talking about is brainwashing, then probably it is. ;)

So what you’re saying is that the way to make it work is to brainwash everyone into “being less egoistic”. While this might be desirable (who are you to decide it, anyway?), it would still imply a massive top-down imposition of behaviours from a “moral State” (a State that decides what is good and what is bad). The idea sends shivers down my spine.

The socialist principle of distribution (should) refers to an arrangement whereby individual compensation is reflective of one’s contribution to the social product (total output of the economy) in terms of effort, labor and productivity. This is held in contrast to the method of distribution and compensation in capitalism, where those who own private property receive unearned income in the form of interest, rent, or profit by virtue of ownership irrespective of their contribution to the social product.

I know that. Feel the same way about it. If someone has propriety, they worked for it or someone worked for it. I think people that have a certain amount of Fortune should get more taxes, but that’s about it for me. If people can’t make it they just can’t. We about re not all the same so we don’t have the same. That’s just the facts since forever. Even irrational animals weed out the weak.

The ability to gain property is defined by the economical system of your time and place. It’s not a natural law, so make sense those who aren’t favoured by the current economical system of their country would change it (manual labourers in western world or wannabe capitalists in socialist countries).

That’s some bullshit. I know plenty people came from nothing and now have millions. I’m sorry but be smarter work harder. Europe is designed for people to get a chance, if they don’t it coz they don’t have skills, that’s on them not on anybody else.

When you send everyone that says it not works to the camps and feed their dead bodies to the pigs (real story from Bulgaria commies re-educational camps) Large amount of population start to says it works even they are starving at the moment …

The same kint of “educasion” was given to the western block also..here in greece you could and up on a island full of scorpions (giaros) just for been a reletive to a comunist..or a socialist ..or anyone that wasnt a “royalist”.. The cold war

Communism was never practiced. We didn’t go further than advanced socialism.
Examples of communism are most of the future fiction books and movies, Star Trek for instance. Every person has his role and position in society. Technology is very advanced. Everybody is highly educated and posess high moral. Everybody eats the same amorphous junk.

You’re boring. This is just the last post in a row of offtopoc nonscientific hate posts of yours. Society technology is a scientific discipline especiaaly from the distance of time and knowledge. At the next instance of the same nonsense I will block you.

Communism is still the idea and aspiration of the future. The first phase, socialism, started in Soviet Union and it was sabotaged by the the rich in the west who don`t want to loose the wealth they have accumulated by exploiting other people This has given them the economic and political power and privileges which they are afraid they will; loose in a different system. This is why they portrayed communism as a ghost. Like any other system based on exploitation of man by man, capitalism will have to be destroyed as people will strive and aspire for equality, for justice. The only system that would grant that to people is communism. It may look as an utopia but this what everything has been for the humanity. They have first dreamed and then put their dreams into reality. This will be a long journey, with ups and downs, will take decades and generations but it will definitely happen. The more the gap between rich and poor widens, the quicker that dream will come through. It is for the new generation to widen their studies and get more involved in politics and not waste their time and talent on drugs, alcohol etc.

It is, but tbh I’ve quit arguing with random people over the internet many years ago. If I had the free time for it, I’d gladly spend it debating, but I don’t. I’ve bookmarked it for some reading(and perhaps posting as well) during coffee time! :)

I cannot believe people ask something that has been tried so many times, if it happens I will be contrary all my life, I will boycott that system by giving the less effort possible in the mansion they will give to me, and for shure I will not be alone, nobody works for others willingly and with no better economic treatment.

Communism, the classless ideal, gets defeated time and again by human nature, and in the process even defeats itself. Because of human nature, large societies cannot trust individuals to do the “right thing” and stick with the program. Many people will equally share resources out of the goodness of their hearts, but many others will not. So you need a strong government to enforce this classless equality unto those who stray from the ideal. And therein lies the problem:

1. Such a government is put in place to essentially counter human nature, but it is itself subject to it. Which is why this goverment will invariably sooner or later succumb to corruption and abuse of power. A pitfall not a single incarnation of communism in the history of this planet has ever managed to avoid.

2. The moment you put a government in place, you essentially create an elite with a monopoly on violence and distribution of resources. Which itself is a class. Which immediately defeats your attempt for a classless society.

Communism may sound good if you don’t think about it, once you do think about it there is just no way it would ever work without bringing all kinds of misery with it.

Communism described by Karl Marx will never work since it is utopia from the writer, it only “works” as a dictatorship, example Chine, Russia, though Russia will not admit it is a dictatorship, you can hardly call it a democracy, and last but not in the least N Korea

The problem with communism is that it pretends to be something different than it really is in practice. Perhaps all ideologies do it. The crimes were committed to eliminate people who hindered “progress”.

Communism is not only a political order but a critical perspective on capitalist economies. So the relevant question for now is not if it works in practice, but how socialism could re-define the economy without overthrowing the whole system. Thus, the question is a shortcoming, leading to inappropriate dichotomous answers, while in fact a truly progressive answer would settle between the poles of course.

Communism can actually work. You just have to enslave a whole generation in order for those who are within the system to prosper and enjoy the fruits of communism. A perfect example is the EU. Millions of young people condemned to be single for life, with no possessions, with no future, destined to work for peanuts so the local political mafia and their bosses in Brussels can earn up to 25.000 per month. EU = Communism.

What a bunch of crock. You pampered, spoilt-rotten children have prosperity and comfort beyond the wildest dreams of your ancestors AND 90% of the world’s current population. Your problems are created by your selfishness and laziness, not the EU which makes your prosperity possible.

Hey Mauricio, if Europe brought prosperity then why are your country’s birthrates so low? Italy won’t exist in a few years. Why so many young people without jobs, property, chances to start a family? You can stick EU prosperity in the part of your body where the sun never shines!

Nick Komselis you have no idea how communism works since you have never lived in one. Low birth rate is actually caused by capitalism and living in cities not communism.
Mauricio Giordanelli I agree with you.

Depend how you try to implement it: if you use authoritarian way it won’t work. If you think we have to gain all the same it won’t work.. If you think we can have equality as value, that workers lead the production, if you think we shall redistribute wealth and corporations and banks can’t rule our lives then some way communism will work. Capitalism is working for us, but it isn’t working for the other 2/3 of the world

Why this (unproductive) obsession with “ancient” European belief systems- as “Marxism” has become? Such discussion just remain “academic”!

Nothing else or better to do?

Similarly:

* what are the probabilities and effects if France or Germany (or any EU member) would become the first Islamic Republic in Europe?

* probabilities and which of these systems could destroy any of today’s evolved democratic dispensations: Capitalism, Communism, Marxism, Islamism, non religious-ism, Euro-ism……….. or which other- ism?

However, a good socialist, welfare state for all is the optimum. As long as those at the top are not bent and constantly on the fiddle. As we see today. Take the British example after WWII. The welfare state worked very well indeed.

It began to create unrest when it turned from good will toward all men, to absurd demands and greed.Today, under Globalist rule, the civilisation we once had is disintegrating. Health, education, transport, finance, welfare of the people and so on. Politicians have created a free for all of lets rob everyone. It doesn’t matter where you go to spend your money, or, to gain a service, the fiddle begins from the minute you put your foot in the door. The roads are a shambles, potholes as big as canyons, hidden charges, no service at all once you hand over your money. All without the back up of justice and the rule of law. As that is no longer affordable they tell us.

It has become so horrendous we see the hidden failures in government lead to outright treason against the people who elected them. Which creates a society afraid to speak out and by so doing correct the errors. The existence of which is of course denied. The direct cause of this catastrophe is lack of true leadership. Inadequate, or, can we call it ‘fake,’ premiership. Visionless individuals placed in office way beyond their ability to administrate. It is now simply from the onset a pretence of leadership. Ideologists who have no genuine commitment to the message they spout. No solid background or intellect to command respect and genuinely inspire a population to follow their prescience.

Listen to these guys and note the difference in the world we have today. Some leaders you follow to your demise because they were or are genuine leaders of a people. Others leave you feeling physically sick.

No it doesn’t work, just like capitalism, wich enriches te already rich ones and ruins our planet . Extremes are never good. Best is a mix between liberalism and socialism. I prefer conservative socialism. I as socialist am sick of the progressive nonsence most socialist parties tell. Yes I want a good social security, a fair tax system where the rich pay more, and good rights and protection for workers. But I also want a strong justice- and anti-immigrant policy.

There is no consensus of what a communist is.
(very similar to words like antisemitism which can mean anything).

democracy (the West is not a Democracy).. representative “democracy” is just domination of elite pretend to give you freedom.

communism (Stalin was not a communist).. communist cant really exist outside of small tribes, communals. why so many of them were tribe members should

Stalin was revolutionary, then changed to authoritarian national socialist (at least since 1935ish onward)..
Hitler was revoluionary, then authoritarian national socialist (until he adopted more corporate practices right before the war).
Lenin and Trotsky revolutionary international socialists (funded and supported by the West capitalists of a certain tribe).
You also get the Fabian Socialists (russel, hgwells, webbs).

The best way to be talked out of your retarded ideas about communism is to actually talk to an eastern European or a north Korean. But on the other hand could Nazism work in practice? Why don’t you shove up your ass conversations about ideologies that in practice killed more that 100 m people? Reported / unlike. Idiots!

Short answer: NO. While a socialist society might work as long as education is put as a #1 priority, communism itself doesn’t at all.

There are 3 problems with the principle of communism:
1) Shared property as opposed to private property. It doesn’t encourage the evolution of the best to the top. In 90% of the scenarios, the best in any field are rewarded by society with a disproportionate amount of money and that results in ownership. Why work harder if you’re getting the same results? It’s a simple problem of carrot vs. stick.
2) Dictatorship. Even assuming good intentions, leadership should always be limited in time. As the leadership pyramid is incredibly tall at those levels there is a tendency to be out of touch with the real needs of the society. At the psychological level, the population that they’re supposed to lead and serve tends to be seen as a resource, and eventually an expandable resource once you have to deal with the opposition.
3) Single Party system. While in definition, this is the closest system to a desirable technocracy, eventually due to human nature politics always wins over qualification.

Capitalism also has the problem of transferring all the wealth to an incredibly small group of people, but this can be mitigated by attacking inheritance and intellectual property. If everyone starts equal and gets equal chances, market economy should work for everyone.

Communism probably never. Let’s focus on something close but with some liberty: socialism. Even so, socialism would require a very evolved, educated and characterful people to function. That and a great deal of government and finance transparency. Such utopia is miles away in any part of the world, since the mass is made of complete spineless and selfish morons. Some Nordic countries and Australia, while not exectly socialist, have some serious social state (with heavy taxation) dwelling peacefully with economic liberties. So far this is the best the planet has. The rest is all amoeba.

No ideological solution for human troubles. Everything that generates political power can generate money, and both power and money generate corruption and abuse; and totalitarian systems (along with non totalitarian ones where the disliked opinions are forcefully silenced) are per definitions the easiest ones for the leaders to abuse with.
Even those positive things that came in time attributed to ideological movements, happen actually more because of technological/ technical development than because of ideologies.
Even the already existing core traditions and mentality is more important in a given population than the varying political or social ideologies.

When you look at China, the second largest economy in the world (soon to be first), it seems that it works. Also Vietnam is not doing that bad, I think. As in every country, it depends on how clever those in power are. The main difference between communist and democratic systems is the right to choose who will rule the country. People in communist countries don’t have that choice. China has succeeded because it has adapted its communist system to modern times. So, it all depends on how shrewd the leaders are. If one follows purely an ideal, then they get detached from reality and the attempt ends in failure. But if they give importance to the practical necessities that naturally arise in a society and use that as a guide and path to reaching the ideal, then they might succeed.

I think the main mistake of communism is to think that love, equality and higher morals can be forced on people, rather than left to develop naturally. USA is making the same mistake when trying to force democracy on other countries. It will always fail. Good cannot be forced, it has to be allowed to come out by itself.

As people are different, even if complete equality of access to resources was accomplished at some point somehow, it would not last, unless it is somehow enforced. Then the ones enforcing it are not equals to the ones they are enforcing it upon. Therefore equality of access to resources is impossible.

Communism is a form of tyranny, like Fascism, the Divine Rule of Kings, and to a lesser degree the EU and the current US Democrat hydra.

The value of a Republic, like the USA, is that elections can throw out such tyrannical
constructs. President Trump is doing a great job in restoring the correct constitutional position. Hopefully, the Democrats will look inward and remove all left-wing influence, communists included.

For Europe, a republic will cater for the widest range of political voices, both left and right, with the extremes peripheral.

If communism if the perfect equalitarism, then it may function only if the resources are are more than ehough for all the people… Maybe if robots will do all the work in the future, the wealth will be divided to “all men” cause they are all born equal…

Absolutely! Look at North Korea…they seem to doing great. There was a very practical Communism in Europe just few years ago. It was fantastic. Stalin was the best I think …he practically killed 20 million people. So yea , bring back Communism!